Spencers In Good Hands

[richard]

There has been a lot said about the Spencer repeater and the men who used it. It is true that without good training, men could blow right through a days supply of ammo in an hour. With the proper training, as were the men of Wilders Brigade, it could be a formidable weapon.

A good example of this was the action on September 18th at Alexander's bridge. When 368 men of the 29th Mississippi marched head long down the road toward the bridge, they were met with massive fire from about 36 Hoosiers of the 17th Indiana armed with the seven shot Spencer's.

The 29th was repulsed not just once but twice by the Hoosiers who were entrenched behind a linnet near the bridge. In the three hour long fight for the bridge, over 1800 Confederate soldiers fought less than a thousand men of Wilders Brigade. The results of this action were: 105 Confederate soldiers killed or wounded vs. a hand full of Union soldiers killed or wounded and 6 Spencer's captured.

In all, Wilders Brigade suffered a total of 48 men killed, 86 wounded and 16 captured or missing between August 16th and September 20th.

 

[tomh]

Spencers

richard,

One of the most important, but rarely discussed, aspects of the Spencer was the fact that men behind low breastworks did not have to stand to load their weapons. A kneeling man could load seven more rounds into a Spencer without exposing himself to enemy fire. Not only did the weapon increase fire downrange it decreased casualties by keeping the shooters behind cover.

Also, CS captured Spencers were of little value since the CS arsenals were never able to properly spin metallic cartridges to get the fulminate out to the edges of the rim. Therefore, ammunition for captured Spencer rimfire rifles and carbines had to also be captured, and once the captured ammo ran out there was no suitable replacement manufactured by the south.

TomH

 

[gary]

Joe Bilby recently wrote a book about the repeater arms and their impact. Good read and good going Joe.

 

[brett4733]

Standing to load...

"One of the most important, but rarely discussed, aspects of the Spencer was the fact that men behind low breastworks did not have to stand to load their weapons."

While I agree with much of what has been said in this thread, I do have to take issue with the above...
For far too long, the idea has been prevelant that loading from anything other than a standing position was a problem. If fact, the ability to go through the process while kneeling or lying down was not only much less difficult than you may imagine, it was probably the prefered method of doing it. With a few notable exceptions (Groveton comes to mind), the soldiers took to whatever cover was available trying to find a modicum of protection. In so doing, they made every effort to make themselves hard to hit.
How often do you read of a battle line using fence rails or stone walls as a makeshift breastwork? Now, common sense tells you that once you're behind a small barrier, would you leave the comfort of said barrier if there is a solid storm of lead flying dangerously close-by?
If actually taking the shot took only moments, yet the loading process could drag on for what must have seemed an eternity, what reason would there be for utilizing fieldworks if you had to stand up to load?
Does that make any sense?
Anyway...my point here is this, far too often we think of these battlefields in the Currier and Ives model. Solid blocks of soldiers moving in chunks of humanity across open fields. If fact, there would have been relatively few groupings of soldiers at any given moment standing or marching in unison. I think the problems come from a number of sources, not the least of which was the manner in which the artist and reporters of the day recorded events. It was easier for Alfred Waud to sketch a block of troops representing a battle line that it was to depict swarms of men fighting in small-scale actions. Likewise, a correspondent could apply high-toned language to descriptions of grand charges by "Hood's Division" when, the reality was a company rushing forward here, while their neighbors took refuge in a stream bed there...
Again, does that make sense?
Sorry I digress...
My point here is that the muskets of the day were, no doubt, cumbersome when compared to Spencers and the various breechloaders, but not nearly to the degree we sometimes like to think. The sheer amount of training in the manual of arms insured the soldier's weapon became a part of his body. If true target practice was a rarity, the loading process, whether done while standing, kneeling, or lying down was so familiar as to become second-nature. And, if it took a few seconds more to complete, the trade-off was well worth the reward.
This is a very interesting discussion!
Cheers and Fairwinds,
Brett Silver

 

[johan_steele]

Brett is quite correct about loading and firing a muzzleloader while prone or kneeling, it isn't difficult and was amply practiced and accomplished when the fighting was for real. THat said arms such as the Spencer or Henry had an enormous advantage in that it was possible to load and fire while never taking the eyes off of the enemy; thus improving accuracy and effectiveness. Having a number of rounds ready to go w/ just a simple working of a lever made them not only effective but quite revolutionary as well.

THe Spencer had abysmal ballistics but had a decent reputation for decent accuracy and made up for its shortcomings with the added firepower of 7 rounds in the magazine. THe Henry held twice as many in the magazine but was heavier and shorter ranged than the Spencer. Both weapons were the pinacle of small arms technology of the day. The fact that the Henry, for all practical purposes, still exists as a viable arm is a testement to the design. IMO the only reason the Spencer is not still around is the skillful marketing of Mr Winchester.

THe history of the 7th IL VI is a testement of the effectiveness of the Henry and Wilders Brigade is a good study of the effectiveness & popularity of the Spencer Rifle.

Of the two I prefer the Spencer. I was in Cabela's today and managed to handle an original Spencer Rifle... I wish I had the $5k odd as it was quite nice; though it had obviously seen some use.

 

[samgrant]

Found this brief yet informative webpage about CW rifles.

This was the first appropriate thread I found to attach it to.

http://www.floridareenactorsonline.com/carbinesetc.htm

-